You can, but not directly from the FLAC files as iTunes won't take them.

Are you on a Mac? I use a nifty little program called XLD that can convert from FLAC to Apple Lossless and automatically add the converted tracks into iTunes. I'm sure something equivalent exists for PC.

I need to have a proper clearout and organise before I start downloading these. I'll grab Melkweg though for a quick listen. Thanks all

Ridley, when you did that Melbourne GiveWayMix did you use Give Way and the SV042 source?

Quote:

I'm pretty sure its actually a post-FM source - either way it's ludicrous that this went unnoticed for so long (though many seemed to have suspicions something was a bit fishy). I wasted a lot of time doing a mix of this 'best available source' with the 'Give Way' tracks a few years back

So, SV042 says it is (but isn't really) from the Sony promo, right?. And the best guess is that it is post FM. I think I remember that right.

I guess the new Remaster version is from the Sony promo (?). My decision was to keep Give Way and the full Sony promo and delete SV042, your mix (though thanks for your effort) and the promo edit (promo through SF 9.0 to make it sound more like give way)

I'm going to try to tread carefully here. I'll also start by saying that I am not often a fan of commercial remasters, so I might not be your key market.

I don't think 1992-02-12 has emerged well from this remaster. I chose this show because I think the original is a stellar recording. First I note that the remaster is louder (-8.89dB replaygain, with the original at -4.70dB) This makes it more like modern recordings, sure. However this is maybe, but not necessarily, a bad thing. I'm a vocal critic of the loudness wars.

For a fair comparison I cued up both tracks, with the levels matched in Foobar2000s ABX comparator. I'm listening with an offboard DAC and amp on Sennheiser HD580s. The original sounds purer and more natural to my ear. The remaster has an echoey, phasey, 'lossy compression' type of sound, particularly on Eddie's vocal. Perhaps this is a consequence of bringing the drum and bass up to sound more 'punchy' like the recent boots.

Of course all this is subjective and what you can do is limited by the original that you start with. Also, I haven't listened to the rest so I will reserve judgement. I'm interested in what you think.

I'm also a little confused that there is talk of remastering the 2000 official bootlegs. Weren't these regarded as some of the best? I might be thinking of 2003, but it certainly went downhill after that.

These aren't meant to be natural sounding audiophile remasters. They're meant to match the official boots.

The 2000 boots that need remastering are the European ones. See "Live On Three Legs" pt. 1 for an example.

And when I say they "need" remastering, I mean from a consistancy standpoint, not audiophile. You can jump back and forth between these remasters and any official boot and the volume levels will not change.

The 2000 boots that need remastering are the European ones. See "Live On Three Legs" pt. 1 for an example.

I'll agree that the European recordings are at a lower level.

Cameronia wrote:

And when I say they "need" remastering, I mean from a consistancy standpoint, not audiophile. You can jump back and forth between these remasters and any official boot and the volume levels will not change.

On a hifi I have access to a volume control so this causes me no problems. On a iPod or PC playback, where I might shuffle, I can make use of replaygain so there is little issue there either.

Cameronia wrote:

These aren't meant to be natural sounding audiophile remasters. They're meant to match the official boots.

I can see the thinking behind this. I'm not sure that I would hold the bootlegs up as the standard to aspire to. I've found most stuff beyond 2005 to be pretty naff. I don't expect the bootlegs to be mastered like a single live album (such as the much better sounding Live on Two Legs) but they could have avoided mastering to sound as loud as a crappy pop album. I remember discovering that Keane's album (and probably all recent albums) was way louder than Nevermind, it's nuts. However, if they did it with S/T what chance did the bootlegs have?

Anyway, I don't think your remasters are crazy loud or anything. My issue is that when I match the levels to the original the Amsterdam show doesn't (to me) sound as good. Level matching is important as our brains do automatically think 'louder is better' (hence the race to 'brickwalled' albums). Perhaps I just don't like the choice of EQ. Perhaps it is the combination with my gear, what are others using? How would you describe the effect on Ed's vocal. Does anyone else hear that phasey, echoey artificial effect? Do you think this could be the effect of limiting, or if not what? I don't know what settings were used, and I am no expert on the techniques.

I'm having difficulty writing this post, the last thing I want to seem is ungrateful. It's no problem for me, I have the original pre-FM FLACs and I can stick with them. I guess I'm posting because I'm interested in why others feel the remastered sound is better. Has anyone else done any critical AB listening? Have a listen to Porch from Amsterdam and let me know.

I need to have a proper clearout and organise before I start downloading these. I'll grab Melkweg though for a quick listen. Thanks all

Ridley, when you did that Melbourne GiveWayMix did you use Give Way and the SV042 source?

Quote:

I'm pretty sure its actually a post-FM source - either way it's ludicrous that this went unnoticed for so long (though many seemed to have suspicions something was a bit fishy). I wasted a lot of time doing a mix of this 'best available source' with the 'Give Way' tracks a few years back

So, SV042 says it is (but isn't really) from the Sony promo, right?. And the best guess is that it is post FM. I think I remember that right.

I guess the new Remaster version is from the Sony promo (?). My decision was to keep Give Way and the full Sony promo and delete SV042, your mix (though thanks for your effort) and the promo edit (promo through SF 9.0 to make it sound more like give way)

I did use the SV042 source for the Give Way Mix so I would definitely ditch it and the SV042 mix itself. JWB's remaster is indeed sourced from the Sony Promo.

lipidicman wrote:

I'm having difficulty writing this post, the last thing I want to seem is ungrateful. It's no problem for me, I have the original pre-FM FLACs and I can stick with them. I guess I'm posting because I'm interested in why others feel the remastered sound is better. Has anyone else done any critical AB listening? Have a listen to Porch from Amsterdam and let me know.

I understand your comments and am sure no one will feel offended, all I will say is some soundboards lend themselves better to this kind of remaster than others. I would download JWB's Berlin 96 and Seattle 98 - these are undoubtedly a major improvement over the original sources

I did use the SV042 source for the Give Way Mix so I would definitely ditch it and the SV042 mix itself. JWB's remaster is indeed sourced from the Sony Promo.

Yep, it's spring cleaning time.

I would say I'd like to have seen the source for the remaster and a list of what had been done in the info/text file. As our experience with SV042 shows, things can get confusing.

Nice to see a .ffp included

ridleybradout wrote:

I understand your comments and am sure no one will feel offended, all I will say is some soundboards lend themselves better to this kind of remaster than others. I would download JWB's Berlin 96 and Seattle 98 - these are undoubtedly a major improvement over the original sources

Thanks for taking my feedback as it was intended. I'll take a listen to your recommendations then. It'll be a pleasure.

The remaster has an echoey, phasey, 'lossy compression' type of sound, particularly on Eddie's vocal.

Speaking strictly as someone with no technical knowledge of how this process works, I don't hear this at all. I actually specifically thought Amsterdam was one of the bigger improvements of the series, at least when comparing the new version with my old copy.

The remaster has an echoey, phasey, 'lossy compression' type of sound, particularly on Eddie's vocal.

Speaking strictly as someone with no technical knowledge of how this process works, I don't hear this at all. I actually specifically thought Amsterdam was one of the bigger improvements of the series, at least when comparing the new version with my old copy.

I've very little technical knowledge in this field too. However, I've always regarded Amsterdam as a brilliant recording. Perhaps there is a little familiarity acting as bias. Also, the effect that I hear on the vocal is hard to describe well.

Did you match the levels? We are hardwired for 'louder is better'. Try matching the levels and AB comparing. Foobar2000 with the ABX comparator is the easiest way to do it.

Really and truly no offense, but I don't really have the compulsion to technically scrutinize what I feel is the better-sounding recording simply for the purpose of convincing myself that it's the worse-sounding one. Enjoying what sounds to me like a crisper, more defined recording is evidence enough for me, as ultimately these things--even recordings that have been genuinely brutalized by the loudness war--simply come down to preference. I haven't listened to every show from start to finish yet (14 shows is a lot of Pearl Jam, especially when the sizable majority of them focus on Ten only), but in almost every if not every case I'm finding myself really appreciating not only the consistency between these and the better of the official boots, but also the consistency among these 14 shows themselves. Knowing how disparate some of the source materials were, I've been impressed with how well not only the volume levels but also the general character of the sound remains pretty continuous across the series. But again, these are ears speaking, not a computer program, so I'll gladly concede whatever technical points anyone may raise, because I seriously have no idea.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum